ArticleCureus2025
The Non-inferiority of Telemedicine in Pre-anesthesia Clinic at a Tertiary Cancer Care Center: A Randomized Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background With the increasing demand for cancer care and advancements in digital health, telemedicine has emerged as a promising tool to enhance healthcare accessibility and efficiency. Its application in pre-anesthesia consultations (PAC) has the potential to address logistical challenges while maintaining clinical quality. Purpose This study assesses whether telemedicine is a non-inferior alternative to traditional face-to-face pre-anesthesia consultations (PAC) for cancer surgery patients at a tertiary care center and evaluates discrepancies between PAC findings and pre-surgical assessments. Methods This prospective, randomized non-inferiority study included patients aged 20 years or older with access to internet and video calling. The participants were randomly allocated to either a telemedicine PAC or a face-to-face PAC group in a 1:1 ratio. An eight-item questionnaire on a 10-point scale was used to measure patient satisfaction after the consultation, while a 12-item questionnaire on the same scale assessed anesthesiologists' satisfaction. We also compared airway examination findings between the PAC and pre-surgical assessments to detect any discrepancies. Results Of 120 patients assessed, 100 met the inclusion criteria and were randomized (50 per group). Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Physician satisfaction scores were comparable between telemedicine and face-to-face consultations (7.18 versus 7.58, p=0.113), as were patient satisfaction scores (6.94 versus 7.26, p=0.251). Airway examination findings were consistent, with no significant discrepancies. Conclusion Telemedicine was found to be non-inferior to face-to-face consultations for pre-anesthesia assessments in terms of patient and physician satisfaction, as well as clinical accuracy. These findings support the integration of telemedicine into routine pre-anesthesia practice, particularly in high-demand settings such as cancer care. Further research is warranted to evaluate broader clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.